UK DVD query

Thanks for the info.

I have to admit that I was surprised when I first saw the VHS version. Yes these days the BBFC can be pretty open-minded and inteligent when awarding a certificate, but in the light of, say, the optical censoring of "In Realm of the Senses", this opening scene did seem somewhat odd.

I'm glad to own the uncut version and don't think the BBFC should have censored it. At the end of the day it is up to the courts to decide if something is indecent, not a dozen or so ultimatly unaccountable "educated" middle class people in an office in London. As rough and explicit as this movie is it is an important piece of art and should not be cut.






"I think you're a load of old crap too, Mr Mulligan!"

This is taken from the British Board of Film Certification website (www.bbfc.co.uk), I draw your attention to paragraphs 4 (the BBFC wanted to pass it uncut):

----

This work was previously passed uncut on video by the BBFC in 1998 on the basis of written assurances from the film's director, Melvin Van Peebles, that the person playing young Sweetback having sex with an adult female in reel one was Hubert Scales, an actor who was at least 18 at time of filming.

Information that has come light since 1998 has cast considerable doubt on those assurances and it now appears to the BBFC, on the basis of the available evidence, that the actor in the scene in question was, in fact, the director's son, Mario Van Peebles, who cannot have been older than 14 years at time of filming.

The Protection of Children Act 1978 makes it an offence to distribute, possess or advertise an indecent photograph of a child. A 'child' is currently defined as a person under the age of 18 and there is no exception granted for the current distribution, possession or advertisement of images created prior to the legislation.

The fact that the scene in reel one appears to show a 13 or 14 year old boy realistically simulating sexual intercourse with an adult obviously raised concerns that some of the images in the sequence might be considered indecent images of a child. The BBFC is fully aware of the historical and cultural significance of the film and endeavoured to explore the possibility that the sequence might not be caught by the provisions of the Act. To test this proposition the BBFC took advice not just from its own specialist legal advisors but also from one of the leading QCs in this area. The legal advice was unequivocal: the sequence was likely to be considered indecent under current UK law.

Although this is clearly a work of considerable political, social and cultural importance the Board was bound by its obligation to seek to ensure that works likely to be in breach of the criminal law are not classified and so could not grant a certificate to this film unless changes were made. The film's director chose to make the intervention by obscuring the relevant images with black ink, thereby maintaining the original soundtrack and running time. A caption explaining the intervention was added to the front of the film by the distributor at the film director's request.

The video distributor granted a certificate in 1998 has been made aware of the issue and has undertaken not to distribute further copies of that version."

----

(a QC is a "Queen's Council", a rather archaic name for the highest rank of lawyer in the English and Welsh legal system.)

I think the problem wasn't wether the scene was simulated or real, the fact is had the actor in question been 18 or over (using movies like "Baise-Moi", "9 Songs", or even "Visitor Q" as recent precidents) this scene would almost certainly have been passed uncut for DVD release.

Neither was there a problem with the nudity of a minor (movies such as "Walkabout", "Prospero's Books" or even "Superman" all feature child/adolencent nudity and are available uncut), it is the fact that the "child" nudity in Sweet Sweetback's Badassssss Song is blatantly sexual in context. And let's be honest the scene is pretty, shall we say, earthy in it's use of language and image.

The fact however remains that this movie is something of an aquired taste and (in Europe anyway) an obscurity. Unlike "Superfly" or "Coffy" or "Shaft in Africa" (or even for that matter "Walkabout"...)it is unlikly to turn up unheralded as late night/early morning filler on BBC1 were anybody with a TV could see it. The people who will see this movie will have had to find it for themselves and as such are not likely to be offended by the opening sequence.

If the UK had an opt-in rather than manditory certification system this movie would (like in USA) slipped under the mainstream radar and probably have faced no censorship problems.







"I think you're a load of old crap too, Mr Mulligan!"